International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology

Research Institute for Knowledge Content Development & Technology (건국대학교 지식콘텐츠연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Scholarly Reputation Building: How does ResearchGate Fare?

  • Received : 2016.03.17
  • Accepted : 2016.04.26
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Employing a newly developed conceptual framework of the tasks and activities that comprise today's digital scholarly undertaking and their potentially reputation building, maintaining and enhancing components, the efforts of ResearchGate in supporting scholars' reputation building endeavours were put under the microscope. Not unexpectedly, RG performs well in regard to basic research activities. Clearly, too, with ten metrics at its disposal, RG is in a league of its own when it comes to monitoring individual research reputation. Where RG falls down is regarding scholarly activities that do not concern pure research and so especially teaching. Its claim to have created a new way of measuring reputation is only partially true because if it wants to do so genuinely then it needs to extend the range of scholarly activities covered. RG also falls short in informing members as to the nature and changes to its service and of embracing new actors, such as citizen scientists and amateur experts.

Keywords

References

  1. Alheyasat, O. (2015). Examination expertise sharing in academic social networks using graphs:The case of ResearchGate. Contemporary Engineering Sciences, 8(3), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.12988/ces.2015.515
  2. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, l. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education.
  3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
  4. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. A special report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
  5. Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W., & Helland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship through boyer's four domains. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741.
  6. Conole, G., Scanlon, E., Mundin, P., & Farrow, R. (2010). Interdisciplinary research-Findings from the Technology Enhanced Learning Research Programme. TLRP, UK. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/docs/TELInterdisciplinarity.pdf.
  7. Datta, K. (2015, September 21). ResearchGate, heal thyself... please? (updated). Retrieved from http://www.scilogs.com/in_scientio_veritas/researchgate-heal-thyself-please/
  8. Egghe, L., & Bornmann, L. (2013). Fallout and miss in journal peer review. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 411-416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-12-2011-0053
  9. Fitzpatrick, K. (2010). Peer-to-peer review and the future of scholarly authority. Social Epistemology, 24(3), 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2010.498929
  10. Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
  11. Garnett, F., & Ecclesfield, N. (2012). Towards a framework for co-creating open scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 19. ALT-C 2011 Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/7795
  12. Goodfellow, R. (2013). The literacies of digital scholarship-truth and use values. Literacy in the Digital University: Critical Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship and Technology, 67-78.
  13. Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 1-18
  14. Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g.
  15. Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C., & Wulfson, K. (2013). Ithaka S+ R US faculty survey 2012. New York: Ithaka S+ R. Retrieved April, 30, 2014.
  16. Hsieh, D. (2013). Organization and role of international collaboration in research production (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona.).
  17. Irwin, A. (2008). Risk, science and public communication: Third-order thinking about scientific culture. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology, 199-212. London, UK: Routledge.
  18. Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., & Herman, E. (2015). Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Research Evaluation, 5(1), 37-49.
  19. Jordan, K. (2015). Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice. In: Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15), 30 June 2015, Oxford.
  20. Kraker, P., Jordan, K., & Lex, E. (2015). The ResearchGare Score: A good example of a bad metric. The Impact Blog. The London School of Economics and Political Science.
  21. Kraker, P., & Lex, E. (2015). A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation. In: Proceedings of the Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web workshop (ASCW'15), Web Science conference 2015 (Oxford, UK, June 28-July 1, 2015).
  22. Meadows, A. J. (1979). The problem of refereeing. In: Meadows, A. J., (Ed.). The Scientific Journal, 104-111.
  23. Meadows, A. J. (1998). Communicating research. London, UK: Academic Press.
  24. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago:The University of Chicago.
  25. Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
  26. Mulligan, A., & Mabe, M. (2011). The effect of the internet on researcher motivations, behaviour and attitudes. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 290-311. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111109485
  27. Nentwich, M., & Konig, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In Opening science (pp. 107-124). Springer International Publishing.
  28. Nicholas, D., Herman, E., & Jamali, H. R. (2015a). Analysis of emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars. Analysis of Emerging Reputation and Funding Mechanisms in the Context of Open Science, 2, 3-72.
  29. Nicholas, D., Herman, E., & Jamali, H. R. (2015b). Emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars:A literature-based theoretical framework of scholarly activities and a state-of-the-art appraisal of the social networking services used by scholars, to build, maintain and showcase their reputation. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC94955/jrc94955.pdf
  30. Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Jamali, H., RODRÍGUEZ-BRAVO, B., BOUKACEM-ZEGHMOURI, C., Dobrowolski, T., & Pouchot, S. (2015). New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation. Learned Publishing, 28(3), 169-183. DOI: 10.1087/20150303
  31. Pew Research Center. (2015, February 15). How scientists engage the public. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/
  32. ResearchGate. (2008, June 4). ResearchGATE blog. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/researchgate-blog
  33. ResearchGate. (2009, February 4). Sort groups by activity. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/sort-groups-by-activity
  34. ResearchGate. (2011, August). Topics: The new way to ask, share and discuss. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/news/2011/08/01/Topics%3A+The+new+way+to+ask%2C+share+and+discuss
  35. ResearchGate. (2012a, May). Projects: A new tool. Optimized for collaboration. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=950742
  36. ResearchGate. (2012b, September 30). Why RG "groups" were converted to "topics" without asking permission of the authors? Why RG topics lost the list of founders? Why RG stuff moderate scientific content anonymously and without explanations?. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_RG_groups_were_converted_to_topics_without_asking_permission_of_the_authors_Why_RG_topics_lost_the_list_of_founders_Why_RG_stuff_moderate_scientific_content_anonymously_and_without_explanations
  37. ResearchGate. (2012c, August). ResearchGate Introduces the RG Score: A New Way to Measure Scientific Reputation. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/news/2012/08/08/ResearchGate+Introduces+the+RG+Score%3A+A+New+Way+to+Measure+Scientific+Reputation
  38. ResearchGate. (2014a, November 2). How do we get entered in Projects?. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_get_entered_in_Projects
  39. ResearchGate. (2014b, November 2). How to create private or public groups in researchgate?. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_create_private_or_public_groups_in_researchgate
  40. ResearchGate. (2014c, December 19). Where are ResearchGate groups?. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_are_ResearchGate_groups
  41. ResearchGate. (2015a). Collaborative Projects. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/topic/collaborative_projects
  42. ResearchGate. (2015b). Related researchers. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/browse.BrowseSuggestResearcher.html
  43. ResearchGate. (2015c). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/blog
  44. ResearchGate. (2015d). Trending publications. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/trending/publications
  45. ResearchGate. (2015e). Commenting and highlighting. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Commenting+and+highlighting
  46. ResearchGate. (2015f). Frequently asked questions: I've discovered a profile in my name. What can I do?. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Help+Center/
  47. ResearchGate. (2015g). New feature: Signing in using your Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or Friendfeed account. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/news/2010/09/03/New+feature%3A+Signing+in+using+your+Facebook%2C+LinkedIn%2C+Twitter+or+Friendfeed+account
  48. ResearchGate. (2015h). ResearchFeed Part 3: Connectors. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/news/2010/05/13/ResearchFeed+Part+3%3A+Connectors
  49. ResearchGate. (2015i). Sharing questions. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Sharing+questions
  50. ResearchGate. (2015j). Getting started. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Getting+started
  51. ResearchGate. (2015k). Signing up for ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Signing+up+for+ResearchGate
  52. ResearchGate. (2015l). Reviewing publications. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Reviewing+publications
  53. ResearchGate. (2015m, September 23). Introducing Reads. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/introducing-reads
  54. ResearchGate. (2016). 2016 factsheet. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/aboutus.AboutUsPress.downloadFile.html?name=rg_fact_sheet.pdf
  55. RIN (Research Information Network). (2009). Communicating knowledge: How and why UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings. Retrieved from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/5465/1/Communicating-knowledge-report.pdf
  56. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., & Huntington, P. (2004). Scholarly communication in the digital environment:What do authors want? Learned Publishing, 17(4), 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1087/0953151042321680
  57. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876-889. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236
  58. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2016). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size and impact. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved from http://cba.scit.wlv.ac.uk/-cm1993/papers/ResearchGateArticles_preprint.pdf
  59. Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282-1293. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22636
  60. Ward, J., Bejarano, W., & Dudas, A. (2015). Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review. Liber Quarterly, 24(4).
  61. Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium, 4.
  62. Weller, A. C. (2000). Editorial peer review for electronic journals: Current issues and emerging models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1328-1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1049>3.0.CO;2-N
  63. Weller, M. (2011). The nature of scholarship. In: The digital scholar: How technology is transforming academic practice. A&C Black. Retrieved from http://www.bloomsburyacademic.com/view/DigitalScholar_9781849666275/chapter-ba-9781849666275-chapter-005.xml
  64. Winter, R. (2015). Interview with Ijad Madisch on "The future of publishing and discussing research". Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(2), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0368-2
  65. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
  66. Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers?. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007
  67. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188

Cited by

  1. User behaviors and network characteristics of US research universities on an academic social networking site pp.1573-174X, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0339-x